Rather than empathy, I run situations and choices through my moral system to determine right and wrong.

...

That's fine up to a point but since 'right' and 'wrong' are at best subjective based on the perception of the individual, understand that there are limitations to your framework of reasoning, and that it is questionable to many that you have separated the meaning of 'moral' from 'empathy' in the first place.

As an analogy, the only "Right" for a corporation in free market capitalism is to maximise returns and earnings per share for shareholders.
A corporation is legally obligated to do so, within a strictly 'legal' sense.
It is certainly not a question of empathy, and not even a question of morals -
A corporation feels no empathy, but in a purely rational sense, it is obligated to act in the best interest of its own success in order to keep shareholders happy.
If a shareholder in a New York State Coal Seam Gas company gets a windfall from their investment, that is 'good' and 'right' for the shareholder, but if that same shareholder happens to live in New York State and contracts cancer as a result of exposure to the contaminated water table the CSG exploration wells fracked into, that is 'bad' and 'wrong' for the same shareholder.

If corporations were obligated to act ethically (i.e. in the sense of empathy where the value of the greater good is held above the value of the individual), their profits most likely would not be as great, however there would be far fewer victims of 'wrong'-doing by that corporation.

Even that distinction of 'right' and 'wrong' is still subjective,
but it shows the dangers of rationalisation and thinking that 'humanism' and 'morals' are sufficient without the concept of 'empathy' as a guideline.

Love is 100% optional and completely unnessasary in any situation. There is not one situation in all of existence where one is required to love another...

Again, you have left out a critical aspect of a humanist value-system in this thinking -
Even if 'love' is purely a manifestation of the human endocrine system with releases of dopamine, oxytocin & endorphins among others to reward us for responding to another human we have a connection to, (whether familial or romantic), it is a key part of how human relationships actually work, and to an extent, why families can even stand to live together under the same roof - we no longer live in the tribal communities and villages of our human ancestors - if anything, our family unit would continue to shrink if we were not pressured by population growth and economic realities of housing affordability.
For a child to be raised in a family environment lacking those key chemical stimulants on both sides of the parent/child relationship, their own brain chemistry will be hampered in its ability to successfully adapt and interact with society as a whole - not to the extent of creating sociopaths, but certainly reducing the chances of healthy social interaction.
Successful human interactive social behaviour is not just a simple set of body language, gestures, verbal communication, and 'obligatory acts'.
The definition of abuse extends beyond physical and verbal violence - long term emotional neglect and withholding of affection can also have detrimental impacts on childhood development.
http://ahrp.org/failed-experiments-child-rearing-experts-visions-and-revisions/
We see similar patterns of excessive aggression in studies of social animals where the young have been left with reduced counts of adults in the herd, e.g. in elephants -
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941023&slug=1937416
http://www.parentingtheatriskchild.com/social%20dominance.html

Ultimately, it is imperative to continue to strive scientifically for an optimal balance which meets both physiological requirements and enables a harmonic global society.
As strange as the following article may sound, that is what Dr B.F. Skinner was attempting, albeit with limited scope and a non-comprehending mainstream audience.
http://io9.com/5946822/did-bf-skinner-really-put-babies-into-boxes?trending_test_a&utm_expid=66866090-62.H_y_0o51QhmMY_tue7bevQ.1

You ask if a parent is morally obligated to love you, then say a paragraph later

Keep in mind, I'm only talking about the moral requirement to feed, raise, and house children.... love is a totally different issue."

Then in the next paragraph:

Is there a point where your parents no longer have to love you to be moral people? Is it a decision you make? Like if you become a serial killer, are your parents no longer morally obligated to love you then? Well... I say never... because no parent is over morally required to actually love thier children.

You seem to be confusing the moral duty to care for a child, the legal requirement to provide for children in your care, and the emotional compulsion to dote on them with each other. It is entirely possible to do any combination of the three or just one. However, while the first two are externally enforceable the third only comes from within each individual person.

You don't seem to understand that human beings are more than just higher thinking, logic, and moral reasoning. Like it or not, the majority of us have and are capable of feeling emotions; love is an emotion not a social convention like ethics or morality and should not be equated to or treated as one.

That said the parents are completely within their rights to disown their child. He is of age and strictly speaking not a child anymore. I don't agree with their reasoning, but up until this point they have fulfilled their duty as parents so it's none of my business if they kick a grown man out of their house.

I believed many parents love their children regardless of what happened. Have you seen people who hide their family members who are part of gangs or still go see them in prison, even though something wrong has occurred?

It`s just a bond of love, I'm assuming.
Parents Having No Love, Regardless

If your parents don`t love you and you did nothing wrong. You can`t just blame them because they don`t feel love towards you. Though as parents, I think you should take care of them. Or bring them into the hands of someone who can fulfill a duty as parents.

You are correct in my eyes, Silver. There is a time, you must let people go. Because it`s just not right. Such as the case in the footage above.